[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       perl5-porters
Subject:    Re: 5.10.0 Source Tree Update Problem
From:       demerphq <demerphq () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-01-30 14:59:56
Message-ID: 9b18b3110901300659j43fe968bvbc82e251a1be78f () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2009/1/30 Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 01:40:41AM +0100, demerphq wrote:
>> 2009/1/29 Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com>:
>> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:09:19AM +0100, demerphq wrote:
>> >> I think ill try to put together a list for you then.
>> >
>> > Okay thanks!
>> > (I won't need it for a few days yet)
>>
>> Well when you are ready im pretty sure the following command will list them all:
>>
>> git log -S'patchnum|patchnun|git_version' --pickaxe-regex
>> 8565263ab8a47cda76538c0286536f59c53e155f^..origin/blead
>
> So this is basically equal to all commits between [moving to git] and
> [now] that refer to patchnum, patchnun, or git_version?

Yes.

> So to rework my question - is there anything related to patchnum etc that
> I explicitly shouldn't merge into 5.10.x yet?

Personally I dont think so.

> PS patchnun doesn't seem to match anything!

Hmm, I thought that the absolute first commit in the sequence is
matched by patchnun. As my first commit in the sequence
make_patchnum.sh was called make_patchnun.sh, but it looks like git
log -S doesnt match on filenames, just content. Anyway, cant hurt to
play it safe in the -S pattern eh?

$ git show 8565263ab8a47cda76538c0286536f59c53e155f

Will reveal the incorrectly named file.

Yves

-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]